21 réponses à ce sujet

[Spirit Keeper]

 Be warned, this is a big read. I like to go into detail when I say or explain something. Feel free to skim 

 

I play the series on PC and have modded characters. In DA:O I was a Male, Human Noble Mage. My character was gay and romanced Alistair and they became kings of Ferelden. Because of save importing, Awakening and DA2 recognised that my Warden was a: Male, b:Human Nobel c: Mage d:Gay e:Romanced Alistair in an s/s relationship and rules the country together (It was nice seeing Alistair come to meet his king in Awakening dawww :3). Bodahn referred to the marriage in DA2.

So since it seems save importing won't be in DA:I (though I have seen tweets from...however long ago, saying that they were hoping to implement save importing) i'm afraid they won't have the options to recreate my Gay Warden/Alistair pairing using the keep. I only mention this because even though I did it though modding, BECAUSE DA:O, DA:A and DA2 used save importing, it still recognised everything. I'm not sure how aware the Dragon Age team at Bioware is of modding, especially went to comes to same sex romances, but if they are going to go for The Keep only then I really would like FULL control over the options I use to create the save. Don't just lock me into HAVING to pick a female rogue/warrior in order to have married Alistair and become his joint ruler. Let me recreate my gay noble mage who is married to Alistair as the kings of Ferelden. If The Keep method is a bust then I guess i'll just have to cross my nuts that save importing happens. Note: see my post on page 4 to clarify this topic.

 

As for the engine thing. My character in DA:O and DA2 was a mage Warden/Hawke and I wore many different armours (the DA2 templar armour, Hawke Mage Champion armour, Sebastian's armour and the regalia of weisshaupt etc. for both games) and used a greatswords, staves (Starfang, Parthalan etc again through modding). Since it may be impossible to mod DA:I i'm worried that we'll lose so much custom content, i'm thinking specifically ported armour and weapons which is how I was able to use all those items in both of the games so far.

I guess i'm scared that in trying to ship a beautiful game they will be cutting out user creativity which as been a staple of PC gaming for so many years in Bioware games. My first ever mod was for the first Knights of the Old Republic game and I finally got round to making a DA2 mod.

 

 

Now for the sexuality thing. Bioware has depicted every non-straight character so far as being promiscuous, yes Morrigan says that she has had many men however She is perhaps the straight romance (that I can think of) in the series who has had casual sex. As a gay man myself playing these games it comes across as Bioware thinking that all non-straight people just have sex, sex, sex and more sex. I'm not a stereotype and my sexuality isn't something to be fetishised.

 

Aveline: woman - Does the whole marriage before sex thing.

Merrill: woman - Isn't stated to be promiscuous. Her whole clan hates her and she doesn't exactly seem like a people person.

Alistair: Straight male - Virgin.

Sebastian: Straight male: Chaste.

Anders, Zevran, Fenris, Isabela, Leliana also are promiscuous for differing reason but at the end of the day all of them are non-straight and they are all promiscuous.

 

I have no issues with anyone who want to engage in casual sex and I think it is good that Bioware are representing those people in their games, but this isn't my true issue. What I do not appreciate that I haven't been represented in any of the games so far in the romances, I like many of my fellow LGBT people are not all sex crazed 24/7 casual sex, sexy sex. I guess this is somewhat of a rant because i'm feeling that Bioware has the mindset at we are all like that, I hope that isn't the case but after so many Bioware games, that's how it feels and that's rather sad. With so many people consuming video games I feel that Bioware is perpetuating a stereotype which is an issue and speaking for myself, as someone who over the years has had people give me the look of being genuinely surprised when i've corrected them in saying that i'm still a virgin because they've assumed I must have had lots of sex based on my sexuality alone (some more of the werido ones which refused to believe me when I tried correcting them). I don't want Bioware to stop making promiscuous characters, I just want them to stop making them ALL that way, especially the men. I ended up romancing Merrill in DA2 out of spite because my only choices where Anders or Fenris  . (though I will admit that she's super cute and sweet with such a nice accent).

 

Edit/Note/Thing: I don't think anyone so far as misinterpreted what I have said about the sexuality part yet, this is good and I thank all for not doing that since it probably has to highest potential to be a hot topic, again thanks. Still I do what to make this part just a bit more clear for new people who come across this thread so they don't misinterpret. I have no issues with characters like Isabela, Anders, Zevran being in the game, I think their inclusion is a good thing and makes the games more realistic. What my issue is that for a progressive company like Bioware, the idea of a non-straight character not wanting to have casual sex doesn't seem to have crossed their minds. Search 'tvtropes - All Gays Are Promiscuous' to get a better feeling on my issues. I feel non-straight people are being stereotyped and that bothers me as someone who isn't like that.

 

However I am still looking forward to playing Inquisition and playing as a blood mage, hopefully i'll finally be able to change people's minds on blood magic so they won't kill me. My heart almost stopped when Wynn right in front of Greagoir
and Irving, accused me of using blood magic....which I was. I convinced them I wasn't but I reloaded to see where it would go. I told them I was using blood magic and then Greagoir tried to arrest me. I had to kill Wynn, Irving, Greagoir, the mages, the templars. Never again, it was horrible.

[Jessica Merizan]

You can write homosexuality, but not the Q-word which is odd to me.

 

"Queer" has been removed from our swear list and is now available to be used. I think it was an oversight. Another poster is correct, depending on several factors, it can be seen as offensive but I would rather have it available for use and ban people who are using it to cause harm. 

[Allan Schumacher]

Even better were the chats with Leliana.  "How is it like to be an elf?  Listen, check your privilege, I'm obvs Dwarf - well I was until I was thrown to the darkspawn.  Still. :/"

 

It was certainly interesting; I had thought that a single flag would have determined the conversation (like, a Dwarf Noble flag, Human Noble flag, etc) but it looks like they had a separate one for race, origin and class which had different priorities depending on the area.

 

No, typically the entire conversation is self contained, with branches that occur based on logical checks (typically male/female/race/class).

 

So for, lets say, a player line that is "Do you know who I am!?" that checks player race, there will be that one line with 3 different responses.  The game engine will start at the first response, check the condition, if it's true, it plays that one (and the later ones will never be seen).  So yes, you can get very, very bizarre behaviour if you start mix and matching plot flags in a particular way when they are supposed to be exclusive.

 

Especially if, for whatever reason, at one point in the conversation it happens to check for a dwarf first, but later in the conversation it checks for an elf first.

[Allan Schumacher]

Except (in accordance to your metaphor) taking anyone's M&M's at any time is a dick move. I'm not arguing that non-hetero people are underrepresented, I don't have a problem with anyone modding to meet whatever pixelated needs that have. I'm just saying that there is no difference between wanting more of "x kind" of character, regardless of what X is. The only thing is, there's a larger amount of straight people, so why wouldn't there be pandering to them? It's not right by any means....but honestly, it's not bad. Lgbt is underrepresented because there are less of them(irl). It's shitty, but takin anyone's M&M's is bad.

 

Note that the word "underrepresented" in the context of "why are people okay with making characters gay, but not with making characters straight" doesn't mean "there's an equal number of gay romances as straight romances."

 

Lets say people of my race constitute 30% of the population I live in.  If people of my race make up 20% of the game content, you can argue that my race is underrepresented.  If people of my race make up 40% of the population in a game, then you could argue that my race is overrepresented now.  It's has to do with the sheer frequency of how often the content exists.  So no, LGBTQ is not "underrepresented because there are less of them."  It's "LGBTQ are underrepresented because content for them is less than the amount of LGBTQ people in real life."  Note that you cannot use a single game to illustrate "yay" or "nay" for this.  It's an analysis of the aggregate date of video games.

 

 

As for the M&M example, lets frame it another way.

 

There are two children and a machine that dispenses M&Ms.  You are watching this machine work.  The machine distributes the M&Ms inequitably, with the first kid getting 9 out of every 10, with the 2nd child getting 1 out of every 10.  Now say an adult comes by, sees the situation.  Imagine how you were to feel if you were to see this adult take some of the M&Ms from the first child, and give it to the second child.  Now, imagine how you were to feel if you saw the adult take M&Ms from the second child, and give it to the first child.

 

I know in my experience, I would be more supportive, and perhaps even endorsing, of someone taking some of the M&Ms for the first child and giving them to the second child, because I can see that the machine isn't handing them out fairly.  If I were to see someone take the few M&Ms the second child got, and instead give them to the first child, I would consider it a jerk move.

 

Now, you mention that taking M&Ms is a jerk move regardless, and fair enough.  In fact, I would not be surprised if the first child got upset because some of their M&Ms were taken from them, and given to the other child.  To that child, it's fair to say they've lost M&Ms.  But this is the problem.  Ideally I'd love the first child to be like me, and appreciate that things aren't fair, he's still getting a lot of M&Ms, and to acknowledge that the second child shouldn't be denied M&Ms.  That doesn't always happen though.  You get people that will be upset, and they lack the perspective and empathy of the other side.  Most of the kids like this aren't even bad kids.  It's that they don't fully understand what's going on.

 

It's a lot like punching up vs. punching down.  As a straight male gamer, I have been given a lot of content (I'm a white male gamer too, so extra lot of content) that I can identify with really well, across all gaming.  So yes, by having a gay relationship in a game that would have otherwise been straight, I lose out but someone else benefits.  I'm okay with this "sacrifice" though, because in general it's not like there isn't still a lot of content out there that is suited more directly to my tastes.

[Allan Schumacher]

I get that, but my point was, even If white people have the majority, is the ratio any better for them. Think of all the really shi**y games out there, if the majority have white protagonists, then don't whites have the majority of caricatures? (I have no clue what's what on a per capita basis)

 

Yes caricatures of white people exist.  I'd argue that the variety of white people as protagonists varies a lot more more than various minorities.  I'd also argue that in many cases, the white male protagonist is still often what white males consider ideal.

 

 

I don't see the difference. Truly, dwarves and elves don't exist. So fantasy racism is okay. playing a anti-human racist dwarf/elf is all good? But that relates in no way to real life racism? But saying "those parts don't go there" in thedas is too real an issue? Explain

 

I find it easier to explore those types of themes when the targets of said abuses are targeted for traits that no human being has.  We can look at it and go "whoa that's awful!" and make comparisons to real life, but no one looks at it and identifies that a real world stereotype is being propagated in the game world.  Now you can argue that it's cliche for elves to be oppressed by humans or whatnot, but then it becomes a narrative writing concern without any of the potential social considerations.

[Allan Schumacher]

Ummmm, not sure if you saw one of my
Posts after that one(or if you care) but I said my stance was that the majority could stand to take a few hits and I have no problem with it. But my analogy would be there are 3 children getting 9/10 M&M's and 1 child gettin one.

 

This analogy though, isn't applicable to the concern you expressed here.

 

It always makes me curious that make "character" gay mods are so positively received. Like sure, you wanna romance a character a specific way, go for it. But if there was a make "character" straight mod it'd be incredibly offensive and derogatory.

 

You asked why gay mods are well received, while straight mods are not.  The analogy was to hopefully illustrate why people will behave this way.

 

 

 

 

Apparently, we should be so lucky to be acknowledged at all.

 

I actually have struggled with the "Argh we're trying" perspective too.  And I think it is still possible for someone to come across *too* aggressively.  But I've learned that in general, the reason why people may "call us out" on stuff like this, is because our games provide a platform for minority people to feel as though they have a voice.  There's little point going to a forum of a game that features zero content from a developer that hasn't even bothered to attempt to create said content.

 

So in this sense, it's really just a different make up of "people that like our games that have feedback."  Maria pointed it out that despite how it may look on an online forum, from her perspective BioWare is "adored" (her word, not mine) by these groups for these efforts.

[Allan Schumacher]

Giving it some though it's, at least in my perspective, those similar cognitive dissonance defense mechanisms that pop up.

 

I'll make a comment that I didn't even know was racist (in a recap of a WW2 game, I casually used the first three letters of the Japanese people, simply because it was faster to type that out), and get called out for it by someone.  My initial reaction was that I was being accused of being racist as opposed to simply being pointed out that that thing you said is racist.  Since I believe racism is bad, walls go up and rationalizations occur... "I didn't mean to be racists.  I just used the condensed word because it was faster, etc. etc. etc."  When the reality is I simply made a mistake, and just needed to go "Whoops, sorry I didn't realize that that was a racist term."  But the human brain isn't too keen on having its world view challenged.

 

So when people go "C'mon BioWare!!!!" I catch myself having to suppress that initial reaction, and sometimes am not as successful as I may like.  I don't know, seems similar to me and I'm up late

 

Cheers.

[Allan Schumacher]

I know quite of few trans folk that really were bothered by Serendipity. Especially in MotA, with that really awkward scene.

 

Serendipity came up at PAX Prime too, both from developers and fans, as a poor representation of trans people.

[David Gaider]

To address one of the OP's points:

 

No, the Keep will not accommodate mods. It has its own internal logic to prevent conflicting plot states from being set, and indeed that's the point of the Keep to begin with--to get rid of all the logic bugs and false positives which have crept in over the last two games.

 

As to whether the Keep itself can be modded, I honestly have no idea. Modding DAI to accommodate your previous mods, however, would indeed be your only option. The moment we tried to accomodate any modded world states with the Keep, the (rightful) expectation would be that the game itself also did so...and it will not. So there's no way we can do that. Whether there will be any kind of support to make modders have an easier time to make those changes in the future, I can't really say. Right now all I know is that we have enough of a challenge on our plate to simply get the Keep to work.

[Allan Schumacher]

I am against the retcon of Alistair or Morrigan or any character really. The ratio was bad? Well make a better ratio in the newer games. My point is character. If there is to be homosexual characters I want them to be homosexual (see Traynor for example) not heterosexual or homosexual that will change their sexuality on the basis of what the player wants.

Frankly it's also a factor of "what the developer is comfortable with."  I think it's very safe to say that this type of content is something we're much more comfortable doing than we did with DAO.  If it comes down to moving a character in a direction that we thinks works based on what that character has done versus the assumptions of how the character must be based on the things players see, I'm not particularly married to a hardline perspective of "Well they didn't explicitly come across this way in an older game, so we absolutely cannot do it now."

 

The only place where I'd have reservations is if it was explicitly stated that a character was or was not interesting in a particular fashion, and then we changed that.  So if Morrigan were to be a lesbian in DAI, that would come across weird.  If she was bisexual, it's not something that I'd care too much about, because the only "evidence" for her not being a bisexual is that she didn't have romance content with a female in DAO.  Except... such content wasn't even written in.  It's not that Morrigan refuses the advances of a female Warden.  The game doesn't even let you try.

[Allan Schumacher]

No, because we are not talking about extra models or voice acting.

 

This would only be true if the prior content was never referenced in future content.

 

It'd be asking for us to account for the fact that Alistair could be married to a guy, so we cannot use female pronouns or other names exclusively.  I'm not sure if it'd be all that meaningful if the game tells you over and over "nope, that wasn't actually a gay relationship."

[Allan Schumacher]

The OP also refers to their own character as "King" ("It was nice seeing Alistair come to meet his king in Awakening dawww :3").  Does it still work if Alistair explicitly refers to the Warden as a Queen?

 

It's easy to say "yeah yeah it wouldn't bother me" until you actually experience it.  How about Morrigan referring to the Warden as being the father of her child?  Does that still work?

 

 

 

 

Why not let us be able to set our own flags the way we want?

When deciding any feature, it's always important to look at the potential cost.  What costs do you think get associated with this?  Are there any potential cascade effects?

 

Especially at this stage of the project (or even April 6).

[Allan Schumacher]

I suppose we'll just have to count on the modders, then.  Yet again.

 

....

 

 

Come to think of it, what does Alistair say there?  I haven't played through that scenario in DAA, though I have seen Alistair and Teagan referring to the Warden's gender.

 

I actually don't know the precise words he uses.

[Allan Schumacher]

If not for modders, I would not be purchasing DA:I, nor would I have purchased DA2.  It is due to the modders that I have played DA:O through about five times.  

 

Good business practices indicate that EA, being very interested in their bottom line, would want to give their games as much replay value as they can.

 

I apologize, but the bold emphasis I added was because it came across as a snide parting shot.

 

I actually asked you what costs you think there could be, and you responded with that.  So yes, it was a snarky response to what I saw was snark in response to me trying to explain the complications with doing so.

 

 

If you wish to discuss things further with me, feel free to take it to PM.

[Allan Schumacher]

To be fair, I have seen people express concerned on this forum (or rather, the old BSN) that by being inclusive of LGBT content means a slippery slope that will eventually include bestiality, incest, and pedophilia.

[Allan Schumacher]

but no one here has said that. Even the Hawkecest(and weapons and dark spawn companion) comment I made was not to say "look what it leads to!" It was to say "these are also mods, why don't they deserve this treatment. No one's saying it's a slippery slope to perversion, were saying with any other mod it would be viewed as self-serving entitled whining. And the only reason this one has legs to stand on is that everyone supporting it can* shout "look hatred an intolerance" to those who disagree

 

Because I don't consider the requests equivalent.  It's easy to look at it and say "Well if we do ONE thing based on a mod, it means that we would then do ANYthing based on a mod" which I think is pretty trivial to point out that that needn't be the case.

 

And I say this while being on the record that I'm not particularly keen on the idea of making the changes for Alistair and Morrigan for how we set up the Keep.

 

 

Coming in and saying "but what about Barkspawn" (or some other mod, that comes across as explicitly chosen because it shouldn't go in) comes across as a display of false equivalence, because one doesn't flow from the other.

[Allan Schumacher]

^^that last bit is fair, but my point is just that mods are mods. I like them, I enjoy using them, they add to the experience. But they aren't part of the game, so don't see why any* mod should be acknowledged or adapted. And if the devs make it so alistair and morrigan are romanceable by either sex that's fine. My jimmies will remain unrustled.

 

I understand that.  And I think it poses challenges (and there might even be legal issues for all I know, since it's work someone else did....).

 

Though the request, in and of itself, can still exist even in a world absent of mods.  The biggest problem I would have for doing it is that it misrepresents the product.  A new player playing DAI for the first time and checks out the keep, and sees that the game will allow him to be in a gay relationship with Alistair, the future King of Fereldin.  Now that player picks up the game, has high hopes because the bits of Alistair he knows about sounds awesome.  He's playing, loves the character and.... "odd I don't seem to be able to romance Alistair?  Am I doing something wrong??"  It'd be akin to us saying that a particular character in DAI is gay, having people get excited to romance said character, and then having that character not be available for a gay romance.

 

The Keep isn't designed to be used exclusively for previous owners of the game.

[Allan Schumacher]

I vote it's best to not derail the thread any further regarding the semantics over the details of why someone may take issue with how an analogy is framed.

[Allan Schumacher]

I am not sure that i understand that. would not  the same does to any past decisions ? IE siding with the elf/werewolf and then not being able to play that in the game.

Alistair was not gay in the vacuum, it is part of his story, I. E we know he is gay because he had a relationship with the Warden.

 

I'm saying that if someone goes into the Keep and sees Alistair is gay and married the Warden (because the player can pick those options), they are justified in going into the DAO with that expectation that they can play DAO and have a gay relationship with Alistair.  The game won't let them do that, however.

[Allan Schumacher]

Gonna say if a straight person is uncomfortable with bi LIs, they're kind of douchey.

 

This could be one of a few reasons.

 

I was once uncomfortable with it, much the same way I am uncomfortable with a lot of things I don't fully understand (including my own psychology).  By taking the time to push through that discomfort I was able to become more comfortable with it.  I asked myself "why am I not comfortable with it" and followed it up with "is it reasonable for me to not be comfortable with it."  So I took steps and made a plan to change that (though a lot of it was just some self awareness).

 

 

That said...

 

 

I've also gotta say, being uncomfortable with bi or gay LI's does not make someone douchey. Advocating against them does, but simply disliking them or not wanting to explore that option is perfectly Allright. In fact, trying to shame people for not being comfortable with that is "kind of douchey"

 

I think actively choosing to not want to explore the option is an example of one's privilege (despite how some dislike that term), because it's possible for them some people to be able to make that choice.  A lot of people don't have such an option.  I also think that if one always chooses to actively disengage from subject matter that they find uncomfortable, they can do themselves a disservice because it lends a degree of power of that subject matter and may be unfairly insulating.

 

People are pretty good at this... myself included.  We resist cognitive dissonance because it means admitting we're wrong.  Publicly, this is often perceived (rightly or wrongly) by ourselves as a forfeiture of power.  I've definitely seen it on the forums, where people who are adamant about a particular position are much more open to critique on that same topic when I chat with them via PM - the audience is no longer there.  Think of all the times you found that one thing wrong with an article that allowed you to completely ignore the whole thing.  I know I've done it: "This person clearly doesn't know what they're talking about" and so forth.  Even then here is an interesting read about how facts often don't change people's minds.

 

 

So we get to an interesting place.  I can feel that protecting a straight person from feeling uncomfortable may not be particularly interesting goal of mine... I also reconcile that a straight person has the most opportunity to choose to ignore the situation (by not playing the game).  Tricksy tricksy.  At some point I think it's important to still do what one feels is right.

[Allan Schumacher]

Also Allan, straight people undeniably had/have the priveledge of that choice. But everyone should. Why is it "bad" for me to avoid that choice, but acceptable to skip games due to a "hetero dudebro protagonist"?

The reality is more that everybody doesn't.  Further, I have hard time convincing myself that providing a choice for someone is a good thing if it allows them to perpetuate hurtful perspectives.

 

It's due to exposure.  Imagine if games were even more "hetero dudbro protagonist."  In fact, lets assume ALL games are "hetero dudebro protagonist."  Your only choice, in this case, is to not play the game.  Which is hardly a choice.  This is like saying that a black person had the choice to not buy a house if they wanted to avoid dealing with the housing speculators that wrote up biased contracts because banks wouldn't loan money to a black person.  It's a false equivalency again.  The choices aren't the same.

 

 

And yes, I think that putting people in uncomfortable situations that other people have no choice but to endure is not a bad thing because it helps improve perspective and empathy.  The idea of "walking a mile in another's shoes."  If you actively avoid the choice because you feel uncomfortable by it, then I can see some potential growth in examining it to examine why you feel uncomfortable by it.

 

 

 

 

I understand the obvious inequality, and have yet to play a game that forces me to go against my native sexuality, but my point is nobody should have to.

 

But plenty of people still do.  Both in the video games they play as well as the other aspects of their life that they have to experience.

 

Because I actually don't agree that "nobody should have to" within the context of any single game.  If I play an interesting game that is high quality, and the main character happens to be gay, is this a bad thing?  The unfortunate part is I think it'd hurt the game's success, even though putting the character through a heterosexual romance wouldn't cause most people to blink an eye.  Though it might make some LGBTQ people go "here we go again."  But I see a world where it's okay for there to be games that don't allow choice specifically, as long as it's within the framework of an industry where those types of choices are pervasive (which we aren't).

 

If we're not at a point where a set protagonist of a game can be gay and people simply aren't affected by it, then I think we still have room to improve.  The problem is I feel that all the cries of artistic integrity will suddenly disappear, because for some reason this can't be "artistic integrity," it is ostensibly "social commentary" (as though it isn't social commentary by making the person a heterosexual).  I do think it's a problem if a game would not be purchased simply because the playable character happens to be gay.  I know I've definitely seen people suggest that LGBTQ people shouldn't worry if the main character is heterosexual, because "games are for fun" or whatever sort of generalization.  If games are for fun, then I can only assume that those people simply wouldn't care if the main character was gay.  Do you think that this is the case?  I don't.

 

 

EDIT: BioWare's games tend to focus on the choices available to the player, so I would be surprised if we ever found ourselves with gay relationships (or straight ones) simply not existing.  Although I do think it'd be interesting to have MORE gay romance options, if only for social experimentation purposes.

 

But then, I'm not the one that makes these decisions (maybe for good reason).

 

That said, I also disagree with the notion that because someone is uncomfortable with something that it makes them a bad person.  In my experience (personal, and observational) a lot of discomfort comes from lack of familiarity and fear of the unknown.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 23 mai 2014 - 05:36 .

[Allan Schumacher]

This conversation is way over my head, but... why not just use a pop-up screen that informs the player that "some choices" were not available in DA:O? You could even have two settings in the Keep... one where "new options" are available and the other where "only DA:O options" are available. As soon as you flip the settings, a screen informs you about not all choices being available. You can even colour code them.

I'm probably naive about this, but I don't see why this would be a reason not to include more options.

 

Because now we're starting to over engineer The Keep with all sorts of additional things beyond the original scope of the project in order to accommodate this.

 

 

As for the thread itself, I'm locking it.  As I'm about to go to funeral, I can't actually be bothered to deal with anything yet, but when I return I will (unless mods have done already).